Find out how climate change will affect you

[rei]

i don't think i have been directive in any of my comments here. i've talked about my position and asked about yours, but i don't think i have been barking orders. if i did, that is uncharacteristic of me as i have a very allowing way of communicating most of the time. of course you are entitled to your position, and i have no role in the regulations being considered. so it's really an academic issue i guess.

[cylon]

Not you personally. "You" is anyone who would start changing laws to limit my freedom of choice.

But it is academic. Maybe your views are more solid now, mine are.

[rei]

yes, more solid... and i have learned that i can express my views on this issue in positive language. i'm not sure i've always done that, i don't remember, but i like it better than an attacking attitude (um... setting aside my comment about paranoia lol).

so yes, academic, but rewarding for me anyway.

[SomeRandomGuy]

I can't understand how anyone could believe that the mass pollution of the industrial age has not had serious negative impacts on the environment. Global Warming is the cause that many high-profile people have chosen to support, but it isn't the only way in which we are killing the planet. If global warming does turn out to be a hoax, which I highly doubt will happen, that does not invalidate the message of true environmentalist or the work that is done to prove the environment. Sure, it will invalidate the message of anyone focused only on global warming, but anyone who focuses all of their attention on global warming and ignores the our other environmental issues is not a true environmentalist in my mind.

In most situations I am very libertarian in my views. This is a situation, however, where other people's choices directly impact me, so I just can't bring myself to leave it up to those people to do what is best. Maybe if we did not live in such a self-centered, greedy society it could work that way. With the structure of our economy, however, most corporations are going to choose to save a dollar over saving a tree, or choose to save thousands of dollars over choosing not to pollute the drinking water or millions of people. It is sad to think that we can't rely on fellow human beings to do what it best for us all, but the past couple hundred years have shown me that we can't.

Back to the topic of global warming, I think that is a poorly chosen label. It is easy to show the potential results of massive global warming, so I assume that is the reason that term is the one most used in the media. The problem with the label, is that if the earth's temperature does not rise, global warming is viewed as false, which people then use to invalidate other environmentalist claims. The climate change we cause does not have to be a general warming of the planet for the effects to still be catastrophic (and for climate change advocates to have been right).

I strongly believe that we are hurting the environment, and if greenhouse emissions are not curbed we will see worldwide climate change. I really do not think that scientists can accurately predict what the impact will be. I have heard some theories that the entire planet will warm, and the polar ice caps will melt flooding coastal areas. I have heard theories that places with extreme temperatures will become more extreme, with higher temps in hot climates and lower temps in cold climates. I don't know what the impact is going to be, but I am certain that we are going to have to face the consequences of decades of irresponsible destructive behavior.

To be honest, I don't know how long it will take before global warming can be proven, even if it does happen. I am very skeptical of scientists who claim they know what the climate was on earth thousands or hundreds of thousands of years ago. The only data that I trust regarding climate is recorded data, which really only exists for a few hundred years. That isn't nearly enough data to be able to even know what the normal climate cycles of the planet are. Since I do not believe we can know what the climate cycles are, I don't believe we can accurately gauge the present changes to the climate. What if the temperature decreases for each of the next 10 years, does that mean global warming is a hoax? Not necessarily, what if in the climate cycle it was time for a mini cool down period, but the average temps during this cool down period were higher than during the last? That could mean that while year to year (or even decade to decade) temperatures are fluctuating, the general trend is upward. My point is, we do not have enough data to be certain what the climate impact is, but I am certain that we are damaging the environment and can see no rational reason to not try to change that before it gets worse.

[cylon]

You trust people you don't know to regulate your life and come up with laws you must follow that could significantly impact your life, possibly cause you immense economic hardship in your personal life, without their claims having to actually be true in the first place (you just assume they are true, even if they can't back it up), and without having any say in the matter yourself? And no one who disagrees should have a say either?

That's a libertarian mindset?

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by cylon

You trust people you don't know to regulate your life and come up with laws you must follow that could significantly impact your life, possibly cause you immense economic hardship in your personal life, without their claims having to actually be true in the first place (you just assume they are true, even if they can't back it up), and without having any say in the matter yourself? And no one who disagrees should have a say either?

That's a libertarian mindset?

I trust the government to enforce regulations that I feel are important to prevent behavior that I feel is damaging to the planet. This topic is one of the few areas where I do not require proof to support a course of action. Even if scientists cannot agree, I know that we are damaging the environment and that somethings needs to be done.

And no, I do not believe that my stance on environmental regulation is a libertarian mindset. That is why I said that "in most situations I am very libertarian in my views". This is simply one situation where I am unwilling to trust other people to do the right thing. Until businesses (and consumers for that matter) prove to me that they are willing to do what is required to protect the environment I am perfectly happy supporting government regulation to ensure that no more damage is done.

[ar81]

People confuse familiarity with risk.
Familiarity driven risk evaluation is about "since it didn't happen, it won't happen".

No human race has been extinguished in the past, so it is very unlikely that it may happen.
Virgins were not pregnant before, so it is unlikely that they become mothers in the future.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

Until businesses (and consumers for that matter) prove to me that they are willing to do what is required to protect the environment I am perfectly happy supporting government regulation to ensure that no more damage is done.

Even if there's no way to prove that that damage is actually real. Because if you're wrong, you're actually causing severe damage to the lives of tons of people.

[rei]

Originally Posted by cylon

Even if there's no way to prove that that damage is actually real. Because if you're wrong, you're actually causing severe damage to the lives of tons of people.

and if you happen to be wrong, there is greater damage to greater numbers. regulations will allow people to change their financial priorities in a way that would prevent the kind of massive collapse you seem to be concerned about.

[cylon]

Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim.

[rei]

ok then...

Originally Posted by cylon

Because if you're wrong, you're actually causing severe damage to the lives of tons of people.

prove it

[cylon]

In my world everything's fine. In your world, humans are destroying the earth. I look around me, earth is still here. You decide to make a claim. To convince me you have to show me proof that what I see around me is in fact, false. You show me scientific "evidence" that other scientists don't agree on. I consult my knowledge of political movements, and memories of how environmental hysteria in the past decades have proven to be false and laughable compared to what we know now, add that to the fact that other scientists are saying "this is not real--it's just political fundamentalism", and conclude that everything's fine.

That was a brief glimpse into my head.

[rei]

in my world, everything is also fine. it's just a nice thing to do to be mindful of our impact on the planet, whether or not something is happening. to me, respecting the planet is more important than upholding business practices that are as disrespectful of the little guy as they are toward the planet - again, the issue for me is not whether the environment is having trouble with fossil fuel use. well, that is part of it, but it's less about that than it is about acting with integrity. if those businesses cared about other human beings more than they care about profits and golden parachutes, more mindful practices would be in place by now and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

we had that discussion already though.

[cylon]

In my world, business people aren't always the bad guy, money is not evil, and the little guy is not powerless.

You're right we already talked about this, so looks like I get the last word on this matter.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by cylon

You show me scientific "evidence" that other scientists don't agree on. I consult my knowledge of political movements, and memories of how environmental hysteria in the past decades have proven to be false and laughable compared to what we know now, add that to the fact that other scientists are saying "this is not real--it's just political fundamentalism", and conclude that everything's fine.

That was a brief glimpse into my head.

Before Challenger space shuttle exploded, there was no "evidence" of disaster. There were only leaks in rockets at Vandenberg that were presumed to be caused by cold. Can you establish a relationship? Before the disaster, "evidence" was impossible to "prove". This is why bureaucrats decided to launch, because they thought that having a delay was more expensive than launching. The proof of a disaster comes when it already happened.

If you were told a few weeks before Katrina that New Orleans would suffer a flood, and you asked for evidence, what would have happened?

Forecasts are based on statistics. Statistics determine probabilities, but they can't predict the next event. What are the odds that if you play with fire you get burned? Where is the evidence that you will get burned? Probability? Is that all? Ok, go ahead, let your kids to play with fire.

Those who "do not agree" are just like those who do not agree that Earth is spherical. They have their arguments to say so too. They say trips to space are a fake.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by cylon

In my world, business people aren't always the bad guy, money is not evil, and the little guy is not powerless.

A SMALL LIST OF CORPORATE SCANDALS
If people are powerless to stop them, why haven't people stopped them? What can you do to prevent companies to engage in bad practices?

• Adelphia scandal
• BAE Systems bribery scandal related to the Al Yamamah contracts with Saudi Arabia.
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International scandal
• Bre-X scandal
• Clearstream, which has been qualified as "the greatest financial scandal in Luxembourg" (Clearstream is a clearing house, i.e. sort of a "bank of banks", used to centralize credit & debit between banks and other financial organizations). As of 2006, it hasn't been resolved yet.
• Chiquita Brands International Financing terrorist organizations
• Compass Group, bribed the United Nations in order to win business.
• Enron accounting fraud, involving Arthur Andersen
• Exxon overreporting of oil reserves
• Fannie Mae underreporting of profit
• Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for use of child labor
• Ford Pinto scandal
• Guinness affair
• Hafskip's collapse
• Halliburton overcharging government contracts
• Harken Energy Scandal
• Lernout & Hauspie accounting fraud
• Lockheed bribery scandal in Germany, Japan, and Netherlands
• MG Rover Group accounts and pensions scandal
• Morrison-Knudsen scandal. Led to William Agee's ouster
• Nortel executives overstate post-dot-com recovery earnings in order to earn bonuses
• One.Tel collapse
• Options backdating involving over 100 companies
• Parmalat accounting scandal & mutual fund fraud
• Peregrine Systems corporate executives convicted of accounting fraud
• Phar-Mor company lied to shareholders. CEO eventually sentenced to prison for fraud and company eventually became bankrupt.
• RadioShack CEO David Edmondson lied about attaining a B.A. degree from Pacific Coast Baptist College in California
• Refco, Inc. commodities & futures scandal involving hidden debts involving underwritting firms Credit Suisse First Boston, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America Corp.
• Rite Aid accounting fraud
• Royal Dutch Shell overstated its oil reserves twice, it downgraded 3.9 billion barrels, or about 20 percent of its total holdings.
• Salad oil scandal, where millions in loans were obtained on largely nonexistent inventories of salad oil
• Tyco International
• WorldCom
• Xerox alleged accounting irregularities involving auditor KPMG, causing restatement of financial results for the years 1997 through 2000 and fines for both companies.
• David Wittig scandal
• Northern Rock, United Kingdom
• Satyam Computers, India
• S-Chips Scandals, Singapore
• Epicurum fund/Parmalat
• Mutual-fund scandal (2003)
• AIG
• Marsh & Mclennan

ACCOUNTING SCANDALS

• Nugan Hand Bank 1980
• ZZZZ Best 1986
• Barlow Clowes 1988
• MiniScribe 1989
• Polly Peck 1990
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International 1991
• Phar-Mor 1992
• Informix 1996
• Cendant 1998
• Waste Management, Inc. 1999
• Microstrategy 2000
• Unify Corporation 2000
• Computer Associates 2000
• Xerox 2000
• One.Tel 2001
• Enron 2001
• Adelphia 2002
• AOL 2002
• Bristol-Myers Squibb 2002
• CMS Energy 2002
• Duke Energy 2002
• Dynegy 2002[14]
• El Paso Corporation 2002
• Freddie Mac 2002
• Global Crossing 2002
• Halliburton 2002
• Homestore.com 2002
• ImClone Systems 2002
• Kmart 2002
• Merck & Co. 2002
• Merrill Lynch 2002
• Mirant 2002
• Nicor 2002
• Peregrine Systems 2002
• Qwest Communications 2002
• Reliant Energy 2002
• Sunbeam 2002
• Tyco International 2002
• WorldCom 2002
• Royal Ahold 2003
• Parmalat 2003
• HealthSouth Corporation 2003
• Chiquita Brands International 2004
• AIG 2004
• Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC 2008
• Satyam Computer Services 2009

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by cylon

In my world everything's fine. In your world, humans are destroying the earth. I look around me, earth is still here. You decide to make a claim. To convince me you have to show me proof that what I see around me is in fact, false. You show me scientific "evidence" that other scientists don't agree on. I consult my knowledge of political movements, and memories of how environmental hysteria in the past decades have proven to be false and laughable compared to what we know now, add that to the fact that other scientists are saying "this is not real--it's just political fundamentalism", and conclude that everything's fine.

That was a brief glimpse into my head.

This is the reason that we need regulations. Until more people see the impact we are having on the environment, we can't expect a large scale change to happen without government intervention. I understand skeptics fighting against regulation, especially if you believe that the regulation will hurt the economy. As someone who firmly believes there is a very real problem, however, I just can't justify waiting and allowing more damage to be done. When it comes to something this important, I prefer preventative measures to reactive measures.

This is one of those topics where I do not believe we'll ever seen everyone satisfied. What I expect to see happen is that whatever regulations get passed are insufficient to satisfy myself and other hard-core environmentalists, while at the same time they are likely to be more than you and other skeptics are satisfied with accepting.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

I understand skeptics fighting against regulation, especially if you believe that the regulation will hurt the economy.

Economy is just a game of numbers. A videogame.
What do you need to have more money? Hack a bank and add 6 zeros to your amount of money in your account. It is that real, all your money is a digital number on a hard disk.

Weather is real.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by SomeRandomGuy

This is one of those topics where I do not believe we'll ever seen everyone satisfied. What I expect to see happen is that whatever regulations get passed are insufficient to satisfy myself and other hard-core environmentalists, while at the same time they are likely to be more than you and other skeptics are satisfied with accepting.

No, I'm not cool with sweeping regulations that are based on something that can't be proven. And if the government thinks it can shut businesses down because of sketchy science, they're going to have a rude awakening. People in this country don't like to bend over and "just take it". It's a mistake to think they'll sit around and do nothing.

[SomeRandomGuy]

Originally Posted by cylon

No, I'm not cool with sweeping regulations that are based on something that can't be proven. And if the government thinks it can shut businesses down because of sketchy science, they're going to have a rude awakening. People in this country don't like to bend over and "just take it". It's a mistake to think they'll sit around and do nothing.

The mistake you're making is thinking that the government is trying to pass environmental regulation without any support from the people. There are many people (like myself) who want to see the government finally take a stand to prevent further damage from being done. It is not a case of the government trying to force its will on the people to address some imaginary problem as you seem to believe.